Towards Comprehensive Regional Security in Asia (Summary)

Introduction

Asia is facing an increasing number of threats which are complex and difficult for any one country to face alone. These threats include geopolitical tensions that are compromising international order, economic challenges that are disrupting global supply chains, and health and environmental risks that are significantly impacting the livelihoods of the most vulnerable. While these may be global issues, it could be argued that they are greater in terms of severity, variability, and importance in Asia with its long history, diverse cultures, and role in the world.

This joint symposium between RIETI and ANU aims to find possible pathways toward comprehensive regional security in Asia, building on the original Japanese concept of comprehensive security which emphasizes economic and diplomatic approaches over those involving the military. It brings together experts from the region to share their knowledge, opinions, and insights, considering the lessons of the past, the circumstances of the present, and the consequences for the future. How can comprehensive regional security be realized? What role will ASEAN play? Are the current frameworks and policies sufficient, or will new ones need to be established?

Opening Remarks

YOSHIDA Yasuhiko (Vice Chairman, RIETI)

In considering the theme of today’s symposium, it is important to be fully aware of the changes in the security environment. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shook the very foundations of international order. Japan and other countries in the region, which are in the most difficult and complex post-war security environment, need to deeply reflect on the geopolitical lessons. In addition, the overlap between technologies as sources of economic development and security-related technologies is increasing, and there is renewed recognition of the importance of supply chain resilience under COVID-19. It has become clear that the efforts of each country need to be pursued on the basis of the premise that the economy and security are closely linked. The rules-based liberal international economic order should be adapted to the changing times. The world economy should be developed stably under the recent international security and political economic environment, and comprehensive security should be achieved by addressing various changes which have occurred internationally.

Against this backdrop, this symposium seeks to make an important intellectual contribution by bringing together stakeholders from Japan, Australia, and countries of ASEAN to discuss comprehensive security in Asia.

Keynote Speech 1

NAKATANI Shinichi (State Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan)

The last decade has provided the world with a significant number of shocking geopolitical events. Russia has begun to assert itself militarily. Donald Trump became president of the US and then began the current confrontation with China.

Then the COVID-19 pandemic complicated matters immeasurably. In relation to vaccinations, there is a deep division between the haves and have-nots., and countries who did not have vaccines were unable to benefit from them. Factories were closed down and productivity fell around the world, and because of that, countries were competing against each other to get semiconductors. This has changed the landscape so that now, necessary and important materials need to be procured among friendly nations or within your own country.

Now, Russia is in the midst of its invasion of Ukraine. I think that everyone was shocked that this has come to pass. A country that possesses nuclear weapons is invading another country, and because of this, the whole world is criticizing Russia and imposing sanctions. Russia abandoned resources, and material costs increased. Once again, we realized that unless we work with friendly nations on procuring materials, there will be significant negative impacts. In the future, the impact from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will continue to ripple all around the world, far beyond the borders of the EU.

In East Asia, due to the confrontation of the U.S. and China, things are looking increasingly bleak. When these types of things begin to happen, we need to be prepared. That is what many nations are feeling. Furthermore, another potential challenge is climate change, so there is a multitude of challenges that are interrelated. In this situation, what should Japan do?

First, the concept of economic security is talked about when we make policies. We need to conduct our economic activities as we think about this. We need to work with countries that we can trust and deepen our economic activities and have closer economic relations with them. When we think about security, we have to also make sure that adversarial countries cannot take the lead.

Looking at the supply chain, we need to work together with nations that we can trust to build supply chains. 11 items have been registered as critical items, including batteries and semiconductors. In order to beat the competition in the market, we will have to work as an entire nation. ¥330 billion in funding will be invested in batteries, and R&D will be promoted. We will work with Australia and Canada on ensuring the supply chain of battery metals. This is how the Japanese government intends to secure our future. As for ASEAN, Sony recently announced the construction of a new semiconductor plant in Thailand, a country with which Japan has close ties. We are working in earnest to beat the competition in the market. That is what I wanted to convey to you today.

Second, we must focus on energy. It is critically important to have a stable supply of energy. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made the supply unstable. Making it stable again is an urgent issue for Japan. Also, we need to achieve the global challenge of carbon neutrality. the whole world has started to seriously think about carbon neutrality since then. Things have really changed in the last three years, partly due to the invasion.

What is Japan going to do? From the perspective of a stable supply of energy, where should we procure energy from? We are currently procuring energy from Russia, but this supply source is not stable. We are also using Sakhalin, but here again, we need to consider where we source our energy from. We also need to think about making investments into the upstream process with LNG, coal, and petroleum. That is something that we need to do immediately. On top of that, we have to think about saving energy, introducing renewable energy, and restarting nuclear power plants. R&D will soon start on a new innovative reactor, with a bill passing in parliament. Moreover, we have to utilize technologies such as hydrogen and ammonia. We are promoting the concept of Green Transformation (GX), and ¥150 trillion of investment will be made from both public and private sector sources to ensure its success.

The Asia Zero Emission Community (AZEC) concept is being promoted with ASEAN countries. We are excited to provide existing and emerging technologies to support ASEAN countries in this regard. We need to take concrete actions. Going forward, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) will work together with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the private sector, as well as the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and other government-based financial agencies, to fund such support. That will be critically important going forward. We need a specific and concrete roadmap to be formed in the future, where we consider a realistic approach in Asia and these concepts must be at the forefront when formulating that roadmap.

At the outset of my presentation today, I explained some of the forces of protectionism which are affecting some countries, meaning that relationships are fading, but we cannot achieve economic growth without them. We need to return to the multilateral cooperation through which we were able to develop our economies. However, at the same time, we must think about national security, which represents a serious challenge for us. We need to build even stronger relationships with countries that we can trust, and rules must be clarified in order to ensure security in the wake of globalization.

As part of that effort, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is also important,
The UK is saying that they want to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), a high-standard framework, but I think that we should also approach the U.S. once again. We need to create a good framework.

Regarding the IPEF, we began negotiations last year, and we have to create benefits for all countries that will gain membership. This framework needs to be defined so that an innovative, comprehensive, and sustainable economy can be established in the Indo-Pacific region.

In closing, we will continue to work with like-minded nations based on universal values, such as freedom, democracy, fundamental human rights, and the rule of law. In particular, this year, Japan will host the Group of Seven (G7), India will host the G20 summit, and Indonesia will chair ASEAN. I hope that we will work together to tackle these challenges. This year also marks “The 50th Year of ASEAN-Japan Friendship and Cooperation.” Taking this opportunity, we want to strive further to build a stronger relationship with ASEAN.

This symposium is co-organized by RIETI and the ANU. Japan and Australia are special strategic partners who share the vision of a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP).” We look forward to continuing to work together to establish economic order in the region. I look forward to a lively discussion based on this knowledge. In order to develop the Asian region, Japan will have to firmly take up its role and responsibility. We want to achieve that together with you.

Keynote Speech 2

Sri Mulyani INDRAWATI (Minister of Finance, Indonesia)

The topic of today’s symposium is very timely as the geopolitical situation and security concerns are currently escalating in Asia, especially as COVID-19 is not yet over. At the same time, we are witnessing an escalation of geopolitical relationships that is creating disruptions to supply chains and complexity in terms of how we should navigate the recovery of the economy. It will be important to see how Asia and especially ASEAN will respond to ensure security in the region without creating more fragmentation, and promote collaboration and partnership under the global framework which is very dynamic.

The region of ASEAN enjoys a relatively peaceful and stable environment that is conducive to sustainable economic growth. ASEAN itself maintains a proactive role as the primary driving force in relations with external partners that are open, transparent, and inclusive. It initiated many regional frameworks which are trying to create much bigger platforms in order to maintain peace and security in the region, such as ASEAN Plus One, ASEAN Plus Three, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the East Asia Summit (EAS), and the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting Plus (ADMM+).

The diversity of ASEAN has brought both traditional and non-traditional security threats for the region to face together, including climate change. To address such challenges, it requires not only the strengthening of internal cooperation, but also joint efforts with external partners. ASEAN has to make sure that the regional peace and stability includes all important players in the region.

The initiation of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint 2025 aims to create a deeply integrated and highly cohesive economy and provide a strong platform for cooperation within the region and beyond. With this vision, we hope that ASEAN will provide an able response in adjusting to the emerging economic and security challenges, or even those in health, energy, and the environment.

This year, Indonesia is honored to be the chair of ASEAN, which has adopted the theme of “ASEAN Matters: Epicentrum of Growth.” We aim to strengthen capacity and effectiveness, and emphasize both unity and centrality. We expect ASEAN to play a role as the center for regional economic cooperation and growth, with a focus on health, energy security, food security, and financial stability. Indonesia raises three priority issues in the economic sector, namely recovery and rebuilding, digital economy, and sustainability. With our experience of the G20 presidency, we are confident that Indonesia will provide a credible platform for cooperation. This is how we are going to continue to voice the spirit of cooperation, provide a positive influence in shaping the global agenda, and contribute to global problems.

We are fortunate to have many prominent speakers attending this symposium. This is a good opportunity for us to learn and listen, and to share our views, knowledge, and experiences toward strengthening the safety, security, and cooperation among countries both regionally and globally. Building a common understanding and maintaining communication are the most important ingredients for us to be able to continue our development, create prosperity for all, and most importantly to create comprehensive regional cooperation and security.

Panel Discussion

Shiro ARMSTRONG (Visiting Fellow, RIETI/ Associate Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU; Director, Australian-Japan Research Centre; Director, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research)

ARMSTRONG:
In the panel discussion, under the theme of “Towards Comprehensive Regional Security,” we would like to go deeper into the issues and try to find some ways forward as we face risks and crises that threaten the global order. We will be exploring the concept and dimensions of comprehensive security, an idea that was central to Japanese thinking in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and embedded in ASEAN-centered regional architecture since 1976.

Speech 1

Danny QUAH (Dean, Li Ka Shing Professor in Economics, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore)

Historically, Japan and ASEAN have emphasized multilateralism, institution building, and economic openness as a way to strengthen our security and economic performance. I worry that the current conjuncture is making many of us move in the opposite direction as we are seized by a false dichotomy between how we keep ourselves safe and how we keep ourselves economically prosperous. This false dichotomy is making us think that we are forced to choose between the two, but in reality, we should be trying to advance both sets of considerations.

With the global pandemic, our nations disagreed over how much lockdown there should be and how much the economy should be kept going, but as vaccines came online, we understood better how to manage the pandemic, and we pivoted to being able to both keep our people safe and kickstart our economies again. We recognized that it was a false dichotomy.

It turns out that it is neither naïve nor delusional to want both economic improvement and security improvement. We can achieve both of them if the circumstances are right. That is the mindset that we need to use in the current conjuncture where much of the world is obsessed with only security. We fell into a mode of thinking that we needed the global economy to decouple, we needed to do “friend-shoring,” and we needed our supply chains to be strategic, and we forget that these categories seek to sacrifice economic openness, growth, and adaptable supply chains.

I worry about China producing 50% of the world’s wind turbines, 67% of the world’s solar panels, and over 90% of the world’s electric storage batteries, but not because I view China as a geopolitical rival, but because of the realization that without China, the world is not going to achieve its green energy transition. Increasing diversification is necessary for reasons other than simple geopolitical challenges.

We need to carefully distinguish different kinds of competition so that we do not get sucked into a false dichotomy view of the world. Economic competition and security competition are distinct. In economic competition, you get ahead by improving yourself, but in security competition, you get ahead by keeping others down. If we continue to go down the road of false dichotomies and only focus on security competition, our world is going to be poorer, more miserable, less happy, and more dangerous.

Speech 2

Mely CABALLERO-ANTHONY (Professor of International Relations; Associate Dean (International Engagement); Head of the Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies; President’s Chair in International Relations and Security Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore)

We have to claim back the concept of comprehensive security that we have always promoted as we grew and started to interact with each other. Japan was one of the proponents of comprehensive security in the 1970s and 1980s. In Southeast Asia, as countries were having to go through the challenges of building a cohesive society, the concept widened beyond military security to economic security, as well as political security and social security. It was very state-centric.

In the 1990s, comprehensive security was challenged, and Japan introduced the concept of human security, adding health security, environmental security, political security, and even community security. It is now important to bring back the concepts that were at the heart of Japanese and Southeast Asian thinking as many of the challenges that we face today have transnational implications. This was highlighted with the Asian financial crisis and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) when it became evident that an insecurity or outbreak in one state can have global implications. This was once again highlighted when we faced COVID-19.

With various trans-border, transnational security challenges, including climate change and the outbreak of new diseases, there is a compelling argument for more robust cooperation across the board. In fact, over 66.6million people were displaced by extreme weather events in 2021, and the economic cost of climate change is expected to increase by $1.4trillion-$4.7trillion by 2050. Also, the World Health Organization (WHO) has said that there will be more virulent diseases due to climate change and other factors. We are distracted by the notions of deterrents, containment, and decoupling, but the global community has to bring back common and cooperative security approaches.

East Asia has been at the forefront of promoting the ideas of comprehensive security and human security, so it must lead in this endeavor by utilizing the regional institutions and frameworks that have been created, while promoting inclusion and avoiding fragmentation. This is particularly important as the world has become increasingly fragmented as a result of political differences and economic inequality, resulting in the loss of trust in institutions.

In light of fragmentation and distraction, Asia has to take the lead and consciously bring back the values of comprehensive security and human security and promote common and cooperative security. These values have become even more urgent and compelling in a world that is rapidly changing.

Speech 3

Rizal SUKMA (Senior Fellow, Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Indonesia)

The realist arguments about how we can ensure and secure our national and regional security through military power has serious implications for how we can achieve security. Instead of continuing multilateral dialogues and cooperation, norm-setting and norm-shaping, and institution building, I think we are seeing more and more countries beginning to pay attention to military build-up, power projection, and military alliances to ensure national security and contribute to regional security. The weakening of ASEAN-centered institutions and the strengthening of new minilateral arrangements, such as AUKUS and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) are reflective of this trend.

Here, ASEAN might be a problem, but it can also be a solution. On the one hand, ASEAN institutions are not adequate in addressing the problem of power politics, but on the other, ASEAN forms of cooperation offer opportunities for managing and mitigating power politics from undermining security and stability in the region.

What needs to be done in order to bring comprehensive security back to the center of the discourse? Any management of regional security needs to consider two key elements.

First, we need to recognize that we live in a three-dimensional regional security order in the Indo-Pacific of the realist order (where countries are increasing military might), normative order (where we rely on norms for governing), and institutionalist order (where institutional governance provides a framework for providing order). The current situation suggests that a realist order is becoming more and more dominant, where people think that the only way to ensure security is by sharpening your knife and stocking your weapons at home. This needs to be addressed through comprehensive security as mentioned earlier.

Second, we need to consider that comprehensive security served as the defining framework for the region in thinking about achieving national security by cooperating with other nations. By bringing this notion of comprehensive security back and adjusting the framework to the current problems of the realist dimension of regional order, we could try to push for a breakthrough in the stagnant security narrative in the region today.

How should we do this? ARF actually offers a lot of ingredients or elements that we can take up and then try to implement in a different setting or context. Here, I would suggest abolishing ARF and bringing the whole platform into the EAS. It is still underdeveloped and under-institutionalized, but it has great promise to be a platform for everyone in the region to bring back the notion of comprehensive security, adopt the areas of cooperation included in the ARF, and then try to address the problems that we are facing.

Speech 4

URATA Shujiro (Chairman, RIETI)

Economic security is a new concept. In my mind, it can be defined as the implementation of economic policies to protect national land, independence, people, and assets against threats. With this definition, I think there are at least three types of economic threats. The first is natural disasters, including climate change and COVID-19, earthquakes, floods etc. The second relates to critical technology owned by corporate entities that can be taken over by an adversarial country and then used as weapons against the countries from which the technology originated. The third is economic statecraft where economic activities are used to threaten other countries, such as putting a ban or restriction on rare-earth exports.

To respond to the first, we need international cooperation, as a country can only respond to a natural disaster to a certain extent. For the second, we need to have a system in place to protect our critical technology, and an example of this is the restriction on inward investment and acquisitions that has recently been imposed in Japan. For the third, we have to avoid having too much dependency on adversarial countries, and increase our dependence on likeminded countries. It is important to understand that these responses may negatively affect economic growth, and therefore their effect has to be analyzed in detail.

I think there is a very interesting link between economic security and economic growth. If economic security is excessively strengthened or reinforced, economic growth can become stagnant. On the other hand, if economic growth is achieved, economic security would not necessarily be neglected as a country’s defense budget can be increased or defense capabilities can be enhanced. Therefore, I believe economic growth can contribute to security at the same time.

The second and third types of threats are actually linked. We need to have rules to prevent these threats, and for this, systems to ensure rules-based trade, investment and economic activities are important. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) can provide such rules, as well as the World Trade Organization (WTO). I am really paying attention to RCEP as China is a member of RCEP and China is considered to engage in unfair trade practices. In order to amend such activities, we have to make sure that China abides by the rules of RCEP. We also have to make sure that their application to join the CPTPP is thoroughly reviewed. In addition, the possible consequences of China invading Taiwan is being actively discussed in Japan, but we have to avoid that from happening, and to do so, we need to have increased emphasis and resources placed on diplomacy.

Discussion

ARMSTRONG:
Danny, you talked about false dichotomy. The false dichotomy for COVID-19 ended when we found a vaccine, but what is the “vaccine” for the economics and security trade-off? In addition, you mentioned economic competition being positive-sum and security competition being zero-sum or even negative-sum, but a lot of realists or security specialists might call that naïve. What do you think?

QUAH:
One reason that the COVID situation has existed as long as it has was China’s own refusal to accept what the world had already achieved. The existence of the vaccine itself did not end the pandemic. The world needed to be brought around to understand the same issues. Therefore, acceptance, understanding, and communication were just as important as the existence of the vaccine. We have plenty of other issues that can serve as “vaccines.” The world’s progress on the global climate crisis is something that needs to be accelerated by all nations coming together. We should focus on the win-win situations.

As for the realist criticism, economists have a much more dismal view of human nature; however, economists have been able to resolve that by having the right rules in place or by recognizing that institutions develop endogenously to overcome anarchy. We simply have to let these institutions emerge because it will ultimately be self-interest that brings the world together to solve these grand challenges.

ARMSTRONG:
Mely, how do we get to multilateral cooperation when the national interest from our various polities and the political economy in our countries would suggest that cooperation is not the biggest payoff in the immediate future? What can we do in this part of the world to avoid that prisoner’s dilemma?

CABALLERO-ANTHONY:
When countries in Asia decided to promote multilateralism, it was precisely because it was the only way they thought that you could actually mitigate major power competition. It is naïve to think that there will be an end to major power competition, but cooperation and competition can coexist. China, Japan, and South Korea, despite their long historical animosity, have shown that they can actually cooperate through the ASEAN Plus Three framework. Without these kinds of institutions, the world will continue to be brutish and nasty.

I think we have to broaden our analysis because the world is not black and white. Some regions in the world do not have access to vaccines, yet if you do not take care of what is happening there, you can have diseases spreading because of globalization. We are now facing a world where we have no choice but to cooperate.

ARMSTRONG:
Pak Rizal, could you elaborate on how ASEAN-centered institutions can help make the change? In addition, how effective are ASEAN institutions going to be going forward, given the problem of Myanmar?

SUKMA:
One approach or strategy is to look to existing institutions. We could create a new institution to address a specific or emerging problem, but that is difficult. On the other hand, we could look at what we already have. We could try to institutionalize the EAS and try to bring new areas of cooperation or a new roadmap. Only ASEAN continues to provide a platform to create norms and institutions, so I think we need to rely on that. As for RCEP, I believe ASEAN needs to reclaim it. The perception is that it is an initiative by other powers, but it is actually an inherently ASEAN initiative.

What about Myanmar? RCEP cannot move forward before Myanmar ratifies it, but we do not want the junta to do so. I think we need to leave Myanmar behind and move forward with the “ASEAN minus X” principle because we do not yet know how this problem will be resolved, and we want to put attention on other issues. I hope the junta will realize that they need to talk with other parties, but I think a political settlement can only be reached through all-inclusive dialogue.

ARMSTRONG:
URATA-san, how do you see the U.S. pursuit of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) working with other regional processes? Would negotiations with China over entry into the CPTPP help strengthen comprehensive security in Asia and increase confidence in the global system, or would it be divisive?

URATA:
I do not think that the US has made significant or sufficient effort in realizing the IPEF, the US should increase interaction with the IPEF members. On China’s entry into the CPTPP, I think the members of the CPTPP should use this opportunity to make sure that China abides by the rules of the WTO and other forums. In this case, RCEP can be a good litmus test to see if China really implements what it agrees to implement. If that happens, then I think it would contribute to comprehensive security and increasing confidence in the global system. In addition, it is important to make sure that there will be benefits for all members to be part of the framework.

ARMSTRONG:
What are your views on the increasing number of security and strategy-related minilateral agreements that predispose conflict over cooperation?

CABALLERO-ANTHONY:
The Quad has always been seen as a way to contain China, but if you look at its agenda, it is not just about maritime security, but also healthy security and climate change. Of course, countries do not want to be seen as advancing an agenda that is concerning to other countries in the region, but at the same time, they want to present the image that what they are doing complements existing frameworks.

SUKMA:
I think the only concern that ASEAN countries have with regard to minilateral arrangements is that they might undermine ASEAN centrality, but it could be good to look at which areas overlap. The EAS could act as an Indo-Pacific coordinating council. In my view, AUKUS and the Quad happened because nothing in ASEAN could prevent them, but it should be understood that there have been other similar arrangements in the region for some time.

ARMSTRONG:
Now, I would like to give each panelist a chance to address any issue they want, but in addition, does the approach of dividing high politics and low politics, as we have been able to do in the past, make sense, or should new concepts and frameworks be developed in light of recent developments?

QUAH:
To get to where we want to go to, we do not have to explicitly collaborate. We just have to not get in each other’s way. Do not let “the perfect” be the enemy of “the good.” In other words, do not wait until we come up with the ultimate grouping that touches all the right buttons before we start working together. Let us have lots and lots of different groupings and organizations, and interests and regions, because we are all working toward the same end.

CABALLERO-ANTHONY:
The UN Secretary-General has been saying that we are living in a dangerous world, but it is dangerous because the world that we know today is very different from the world that we knew before. The concepts that we talk about are becoming obsolete in light of an increasingly complex and interconnected world, including the division of high politics and low politics. You cannot rely on institutions alone to address your problems. It is also important to talk about national or state governance as a priority above regional or international governance.

SUKMA:
I think the new notion of comprehensive security that we need to think about and advocate should really emphasize the state’s responsibility to ensure human security from all forms of threats, especially those that can actually ruin the security of other countries.

URATA:
I would like to emphasize the importance of active communication at all levels. Communication can be very helpful to promote cooperation and collaboration, and also to avoid conflicts with an adversarial country if it is well-established.

ARMSTRONG:
Those who created the Bretton Woods Institutions saw the lack of economic sovereignty and the horrors of economic weapons and aggression leading to conflict and war. The global order that grew out of it embedded the principles of equal treatment, multilateral cooperation, and economic sovereignty that contributed to our security. We do not need a world war to create a new order or reform the existing order.

We have the assets of ASEAN-centered institutions, as well the EAS, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), RCEP, and the “ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP).” I think it is a time of elevated importance and leadership from ASEAN to use this variable geometry strategically, but also pragmatically, in order to search for a new framework of comprehensive regional security.

I would like to thank RIETI and the panel for helping us think of new ways forward that are important for Japan and Australia, but also for ASEAN and the broader region.